Please...

[CFallsGriz]

Pretty sure I saw BW on there. Who’s gonna do our write ups?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course use discretion.

Yeah, you didn't say that. You wrote, "Ban Maroonblood posters for life." Pretty unambiguous. You are a joker. Head snowflake, "grizpsych."

As if it would ever happen. Have you ever contributed to this site? Not really. And certainly not financially, but you in your ultimate wisdom want to call for lifetime bans for people.

Joker

 

[GGNez]

I completely agree and support this sentiment.

Now is the perfect time to raise the bar and set a new standard. Hauck and Haslam are doing it. eGriz should just jump on board. Don't risk losing good, quality posters and your integrity to appease the egos of people whose behavior can no longer be justified.

What??

I don't, Not only is this futile, it's also bullsh^t.

Yeah, go ahead and ban everyone for life who ever posted there. Good gawd, if you agree with that you are not at all reasonable.

CFG, you’re not wrong.

I jumped the gun making my comment. My sentiment is intended for AG1 solely. TBH, there’s a chance I may have even posted there in the past.

I’m adamant about taking the megaphone from the hands of people like Alpha. That is what I was referencing. I clarified in another comment but should have posted this one more carefully.

 

[TCCGRIZ]

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/forum/threads/college-football-message-board-owner-turns-out-to-be-hateful-moron.256522/

What is it exactly you're trying to do? This thread is bullshit. I vote we ban "grizpsych" for unreasonable prejudice and defamation.

You are ridiculous buddy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are correct , enough let's talk Bobby ball and FTC
Please

 

[Fahque]

Pretty sure I saw BW on there. Who’s gonna do our write ups?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course use discretion.

Yeah, you didn't say that. You wrote, "Ban Maroonblood posters for life." Pretty unambiguous. You are a joker. Head snowflake, "grizpsych."

As if it would ever happen. Have you ever contributed to this site? Not really. And certainly not financially, but you in your ultimate wisdom want to call for lifetime bans for people.

Joker

Mostly just AG1 errr...Man1

 

[CFallsGriz]

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/forum/threads/college-football-message-board-owner-turns-out-to-be-hateful-moron.256522/

What is it exactly you're trying to do? This thread is bullshit. I vote we ban "grizpsych" for unreasonable prejudice and defamation.

You are ridiculous buddy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are correct , enough let's talk Bobby ball and FTC
Please

I'd love to Tcc, a-holes like this guy though enjoy making inflammatory statements and just basically being a ridiculous jackass. I will challenge his dumb ass until he shuts up or goes away.

 

[TCCGRIZ]

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/forum/threads/college-football-message-board-owner-turns-out-to-be-hateful-moron.256522/

What is it exactly you're trying to do? This thread is bullshit. I vote we ban "grizpsych" for unreasonable prejudice and defamation.

You are ridiculous buddy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are correct , enough let's talk Bobby ball and FTC
Please

I'd love to Tcc, a-holes like this guy though enjoy making inflammatory statements and just basically being a ridiculous jackass. I will challenge his dumb ass until he shuts up or goes away.

Agreed , but if one does not post on the jackasses thread does it exist ?
Also grizpsych just needs to get the fuck over it and move on

 

[kemajic]

I completely agree and support this sentiment.

Now is the perfect time to raise the bar and set a new standard. Hauck and Haslam are doing it. eGriz should just jump on board. Don't risk losing good, quality posters and your integrity to appease the egos of people whose behavior can no longer be justified.

Behavior like having the f-word or a vulgar schoolbus window shot in your signature line......

I do admit that a variation of the F-word is in my signature line although, I don't feel that it compromises my integrity in the slightest. There is a very obvious, important line that is crossed by AG1 (I'm not intending to throw all MB posters under the bus, I'm talking about AG in particular). If you are unable to differentiate a swear word from the potential implications of the chronic hateful and aggressive nature of AG, there's really nothing to discuss.

I am perfectly capable of differentiating an f-word used repeatedly in a signature line from the AG1 business. But you are simply deflecting, because you are shooting arrows while not being so squeaky clean yourself. While your bar for integrity may embrace f-bombs in a public forum indirectly connected to UM, I would venture most do not.

 

[GGNez]

I completely agree and support this sentiment.

Now is the perfect time to raise the bar and set a new standard. Hauck and Haslam are doing it. eGriz should just jump on board. Don't risk losing good, quality posters and your integrity to appease the egos of people whose behavior can no longer be justified.

Behavior like having the f-word or a vulgar schoolbus window shot in your signature line......

I do admit that a variation of the F-word is in my signature line although, I don't feel that it compromises my integrity in the slightest. There is a very obvious, important line that is crossed by AG1 (I'm not intending to throw all MB posters under the bus, I'm talking about AG in particular). If you are unable to differentiate a swear word from the potential implications of the chronic hateful and aggressive nature of AG, there's really nothing to discuss.

I am perfectly capable of differentiating an f-word used repeatedly in a signature line from the AG1 business. But you are simply deflecting, because you are shooting arrows while not being so squeaky clean yourself. While your bar for integrity may embrace f-bombs in a public forum indirectly connected to UM, I would venture most do not.

I suppose we could ask around and see who is offended by a word from the urban dictionary that, to be fair, is a "u-bomb" vs the kind of stuff that Alpha and his type do. I guarantee I'm not going to end up in the newspaper because my signature includes "unfuckwithable".... Again...the fact that you would even use that as a comparison shows that you don't grasp the gravity of the social implicaitions of hate speech.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Behavior like having the f-word or a vulgar schoolbus window shot in your signature line......

I do admit that a variation of the F-word is in my signature line although, I don't feel that it compromises my integrity in the slightest. There is a very obvious, important line that is crossed by AG1 (I'm not intending to throw all MB posters under the bus, I'm talking about AG in particular). If you are unable to differentiate a swear word from the potential implications of the chronic hateful and aggressive nature of AG, there's really nothing to discuss.

I am perfectly capable of differentiating an f-word used repeatedly in a signature line from the AG1 business. But you are simply deflecting, because you are shooting arrows while not being so squeaky clean yourself. While your bar for integrity may embrace f-bombs in a public forum indirectly connected to UM, I would venture most do not.

I suppose we could ask around and see who is offended by a word from the urban dictionary that, to be fair, is a "u-bomb" vs the kind of stuff that Alpha and his type do. I guarantee I'm not going to end up in the newspaper because my signature includes "unfuckwithable".... Again...the fact that you would even use that as a comparison shows that you don't grasp the gravity of the social implicaitions of hate speech.

That's a good fucking post, right there.

 

[GGNez]

I do admit that a variation of the F-word is in my signature line although, I don't feel that it compromises my integrity in the slightest. There is a very obvious, important line that is crossed by AG1 (I'm not intending to throw all MB posters under the bus, I'm talking about AG in particular). If you are unable to differentiate a swear word from the potential implications of the chronic hateful and aggressive nature of AG, there's really nothing to discuss.

I am perfectly capable of differentiating an f-word used repeatedly in a signature line from the AG1 business. But you are simply deflecting, because you are shooting arrows while not being so squeaky clean yourself. While your bar for integrity may embrace f-bombs in a public forum indirectly connected to UM, I would venture most do not.

I suppose we could ask around and see who is offended by a word from the urban dictionary that, to be fair, is a "u-bomb" vs the kind of stuff that Alpha and his type do. I guarantee I'm not going to end up in the newspaper because my signature includes "unfuckwithable".... Again...the fact that you would even use that as a comparison shows that you don't grasp the gravity of the social implicaitions of hate speech.

That's a good f***[*] post, right there.

:-D

Thank you.

 

[goatcreekgriz]

I completely agree and support this sentiment.

Now is the perfect time to raise the bar and set a new standard. Hauck and Haslam are doing it. eGriz should just jump on board. Don't risk losing good, quality posters and your integrity to appease the egos of people whose behavior can no longer be justified.

Behavior like having the f-word or a vulgar schoolbus window shot in your signature line......

I do admit that a variation of the F-word is in my signature line although, I don't feel that it compromises my integrity in the slightest. There is a very obvious, important line that is crossed by AG1 (I'm not intending to throw all MB posters under the bus, I'm talking about AG in particular). If you are unable to differentiate a swear word from the potential implications of the chronic hateful and aggressive nature of AG, there's really nothing to discuss.

I am perfectly capable of differentiating an f-word used repeatedly in a signature line from the AG1 business. But you are simply deflecting, because you are shooting arrows while not being so squeaky clean yourself. While your bar for integrity may embrace f-bombs in a public forum indirectly connected to UM, I would venture most do not.

FuckTheCats

Embrace it. Coach No. 37 surely does.

 

[IdaGriz01]

... you don't grasp the gravity of the social implications of hate speech.

As I said elsewhere, you seem like a reasonable poster. But whenever I see anyone toss around the term "hate speech," and couple that with "social implications," I get real, real uneasy. By and large, I find way too many people who define "hate speech" as anything that they disagree with. And they feel totally justified if the opposing opinion is expressed in "unfortunate" language. Sorry, the First Amendment right to "freedom of speech" has a pretty narrow definition of what is not allowed.

Aside from "yelling fire ... " (etc.), what many would like to call "hate speech" (including use of the "n-word" and other inflammatory terms) is still protected by the First Amendment. Why? Because anything else puts you on the proverbial "slippery slope." Where do you then draw the line to prohibit statements "the majority" dislikes/disagrees with? Unless a declaration directly and explicitly calls for actions to physically harm other people, or property, we must put up with it.

I was in college in the Bay Area when the "free speech" movement blossomed at Berkeley and elsewhere. What happened to the vocal demonstrators was not pretty. But it's no prettier when "the shoe is on the other foot." It's part of the price we pay for free and open discussion of controversial issues.

 

[Fahque]

... you don't grasp the gravity of the social implications of hate speech.

As I said elsewhere, you seem like a reasonable poster. But whenever I see anyone toss around the term "hate speech," and couple that with "social implications," I get real, real uneasy. By and large, I find way too many people who define "hate speech" as anything that they disagree with. And they feel totally justified if the opposing opinion is expressed in "unfortunate" language. Sorry, the First Amendment right to "freedom of speech" has a pretty narrow definition of what is not allowed.

Aside from "yelling fire ... " (etc.), what many would like to call "hate speech" (including use of the "n-word" and other inflammatory terms) is still protected by the First Amendment. Why? Because anything else puts you on the proverbial "slippery slope." Where do you then draw the line to prohibit statements "the majority" dislikes/disagrees with? Unless a declaration directly and explicitly calls for actions to physically harm other people, or property, we must put up with it.

I was in college in the Bay Area when the "free speech" movement blossomed at Berkeley and elsewhere. What happened to the vocal demonstrators was not pretty. But it's no prettier when "the shoe is on the other foot." It's part of the price we pay for free and open discussion of controversial issues.

Would this count?

Also, this is a privately owned fan message board and the owner of the board can disallow whatever speech s/he wants to. Having the right to say whatever you want does not shield you from paying the consequences from saying whatever you will.

 

[kemajic]

So many judges here....

 

[Fahque]

So many judges here....

So many “tough guys” here....

 

[grizpsych]

Pretty sure I saw BW on there. Who’s gonna do our write ups?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course use discretion.

Yeah, you didn't say that. You wrote, "Ban Maroonblood posters for life." Pretty unambiguous. You are a joker. Head snowflake, "grizpsych."

As if it would ever happen. Have you ever contributed to this site? Not really. And certainly not financially, but you in your ultimate wisdom want to call for lifetime bans for people.

Joker

Actually, I did write it. And way before your first post in this thread. You sure got heated. It's like I violated your safe place.

 

[Fushiznitz]

ban maroonblood posters for life.

Sorry, but this is emotional, not rational.

Coach Hauck said that we are all Griz Nation. To me, that means we all represent UM. I agree. So, instead of calling for people we disagree with to be silenced, how about we ask for civility?

 

[CFallsGriz]

Pretty sure I saw BW on there. Who’s gonna do our write ups?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course use discretion.

Yeah, you didn't say that. You wrote, "Ban Maroonblood posters for life." Pretty unambiguous. You are a joker. Head snowflake, "grizpsych."

As if it would ever happen. Have you ever contributed to this site? Not really. And certainly not financially, but you in your ultimate wisdom want to call for lifetime bans for people.

Joker

Actually, I did write it. And way before your first post in this thread. You sure got heated. It's like I violated your safe place.

Nah, pretty sure you're the one in need of a safe space, what with your calling for wholesale lifetime bans and all. Because you need eGriz to be safer; not too hard to understand for a high end intellectual I wouldn't think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GGNez]

... you don't grasp the gravity of the social implications of hate speech.

As I said elsewhere, you seem like a reasonable poster. But whenever I see anyone toss around the term "hate speech," and couple that with "social implications," I get real, real uneasy. By and large, I find way too many people who define "hate speech" as anything that they disagree with. And they feel totally justified if the opposing opinion is expressed in "unfortunate" language. Sorry, the First Amendment right to "freedom of speech" has a pretty narrow definition of what is not allowed.

Aside from "yelling fire ... " (etc.), what many would like to call "hate speech" (including use of the "n-word" and other inflammatory terms) is still protected by the First Amendment. Why? Because anything else puts you on the proverbial "slippery slope." Where do you then draw the line to prohibit statements "the majority" dislikes/disagrees with? Unless a declaration directly and explicitly calls for actions to physically harm other people, or property, we must put up with it.

I was in college in the Bay Area when the "free speech" movement blossomed at Berkeley and elsewhere. What happened to the vocal demonstrators was not pretty. But it's no prettier when "the shoe is on the other foot." It's part of the price we pay for free and open discussion of controversial issues.

I definitely understand and value the point you're making here. Free speech is very important. I don't use the term "hate speech" loosely - I value my right to disagree with others and theirs to disagree with me. I use it as the legal, moral and literal definition. Speech that makes one feel threatened, that incites violence against a person or group...words that spew an ugly hatred and animosity toward a specific gender or race. I guess that's how I would define it. And, tbh, I'm looking back at my past experineces with AG1 on this site. I'm looking at how he can turn "all in good fun" banter, taunting, sports debates into something that makes everyone uncomfortable. There's no place for that. I just wish the line were as clear to others as it is to me. It's more about that "icky" gut feeling when a good debate turns into an gross feeling and makes you want to log off and stay away from eGriz for a while.

 

[IdaGriz01]

...
I definitely understand and value the point you're making here. Free speech is very important. I don't use the term "hate speech" loosely - I value my right to disagree with others and theirs to disagree with me. I use it as the legal, moral and literal definition. Speech that makes one feel threatened, that incites violence against a person or group...words that spew an ugly hatred and animosity toward a specific gender or race. I guess that's how I would define it. ...

I think we are generally in agreement, certainly about the "moral and literal definition." "Hate speech" is ugly, hurtful, and should not have any place in modern society. But the legal position -- re recent Supreme Court decision(s) -- does not dip into what you and I may regard as "wrong" in something said or printed. Parsing your definition, the only prohibited speech is that which "incites violence against a person or group."

Material that "makes one feel threatened" or "words that spew an ugly hatred" -- however reprehensible we may find them, cannot be legally suppressed. To do so is to put ourselves on that "slippery slope" ... because, "where do you [or a despot] draw the line." I'm sure you are aware that there a number of countries where any perceived criticism of the powers-that-be will get you thrown in jail. History has repeatedly shown that the slippery slope can too-easily go from prohibitions that seem "reasonable" to most people ... all the way to total despotism.